why does eating more = weight loss?
Replies
-
bump need to come back to finish reading later.0
-
Part of the science has to do with how the body adapts. You can eat low calories and lose but eventually the body will learn to maintain on it, because it "thinks" you are in a famine period. Then metabolism slows, etc.
Eating more teaches your body that food is plentiful, and can burn the fat stores rather than hang on to them.
Obviously there are limits, you can starve yourself to death, but probably not on 1200. You just won't be feeding the machine correctly
Right, metabolism slows down but if you knew what it was and you still maintained a deficit you would still lose weight. I am arguing that because of the slowdown in metabolism people don't estimate burns correctly and then they are no long actually in a consistent calorie deficit. Still, I would think this effect would be fairly small and most cases of people eating more to start losing again are due to improved consistency.
Also, burning fat vs muscle is not the OP's question, it is total weight loss he is asking about. A true calorie deficit will always yield weight loss. Increasing calories substantially is likely to decrease calorie deficit even if it slightly raises metabolism. Does anyone have any scientific evidence on the magnitude of metabolic slowdown that can occur? I would be interested in seeing those estimates. Maybe they are larger than I expect.
^ I agree with this assessment.0 -
Part of the science has to do with how the body adapts. You can eat low calories and lose but eventually the body will learn to maintain on it, because it "thinks" you are in a famine period. Then metabolism slows, etc.
Eating more teaches your body that food is plentiful, and can burn the fat stores rather than hang on to them.
Obviously there are limits, you can starve yourself to death, but probably not on 1200. You just won't be feeding the machine correctly
Right, metabolism slows down but if you knew what it was and you still maintained a deficit you would still lose weight. I am arguing that because of the slowdown in metabolism people don't estimate burns correctly and then they are no long actually in a consistent calorie deficit. Still, I would think this effect would be fairly small and most cases of people eating more to start losing again are due to improved consistency.
Also, burning fat vs muscle is not the OP's question, it is total weight loss he is asking about. A true calorie deficit will always yield weight loss. Increasing calories substantially is likely to decrease calorie deficit even if it slightly raises metabolism. Does anyone have any scientific evidence on the magnitude of metabolic slowdown that can occur? I would be interested in seeing those estimates. Maybe they are larger than I expect.
^ I agree with this assessment.
Seconded.0 -
Read this
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
Explains all
This!
and this...http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/865024-1200-and-why-it-won-t-work0 -
The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.
If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..
Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.
I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have lots of body fat.
I think the term "starvation mode" is wrong and that is where the confusion begins. For sure..starving people are no way holding onto fat. The correct description would be the body goes into defense mode and slows the metabolism down when it senses a severe change of any kind that would impact fat loss which is there to protect keep the body safe from famine.
In my opinion; extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts the body in a defense mode that holds onto fat. You hear it all the time ..that when someone starts exercising like mad..they gain weight or don't lose. Then everyone says it is muscle ..but that doesn't happen in a week. The body is in defense mode..0 -
I'm no expert, but to me based on anecdotal evidence of myself and people I've interacted with online, as well as what I learned in the biology, anatomy, physiology, microbiology and nutrition classes I've taken, if you are only, say, 20% over a normal weight, it is counterproductive to have greater than a 1000 calorie deficit per day. If you truly burn 2200 calories on an average day, but regularly only feed it less than 1200 calories, then your body will begin to produce hormones/signals that tell the cells to slow down their consumption of energy and hold onto any lipid cells. I don't think any of my textbooks called this "starvation mode." Just a normal, temporary metabolic/energy decrease in response to less available food, the kind of thing that happens to hunter/gatherer humans during Winter months. You have less energy, sleep more, fidget less... basically you go into a light hibernation mode where you stop needing the 2200 calories per day for the same "activity" level (even though your "activity" has, in fact, changed imperceptively. You simply don't realize you fidget less and sleep more).
^^^^THIS^^^ When I was 50 pounds heavier, (and ate much less than I do now) I could barely get off the couch. That's how weak and tired I was. I could barely even FIND my muscles--they were so encased in fat. I got that way because of arthritis---over the years I just moved less and less and I didn't even know how to eat. I hated vegetables, and ate little protein because I thought fat didn't agree with me. I ate mostly carbohydrates (in the form of wheat bread) and sugar (to "give me more energy"---or so I thought). And the pounds kept piling on even though, when I looked at my daily calories, on most days, I wasn't eating enough calories to maintain my weight. And sometimes I would go to a buffet or out to a restaurant and eat everything they put in front of me---and then feel sick for a day or so. When I look back on it...
Then one day I got mad about feeling so crummy and decided I was going to do something about it. The first thing I got rid of was sugar and wheat. And I immediately felt better. My blood pressure started to come down faster than my weight but both came down (I was able to taper off the two B.P. meds I was taking in a few months). Once I had lost about 30 pounds, my arthritis felt much better and I decided to start exercising and lifting light weights (I started with 2 pounders and I'm up to 10 at this point). Eventually, I hope to lift even more but we'll see. Then I started pool exercise and I saw a dramatic improvement in my joints. And I started moving more all the time. I started eating vegetables and protein and cut back on carbs to about 100 grams per day (and now I love vegetables). Then I lost even more fat. As I lost fat and gained muscle, I found that I could eat more calories than I had for a long time, and still lose weight. It's basically reversing what got me into the bad state of health that I was in.0 -
The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.
If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..
Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.
I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have lots of body fat.
I think the term "starvation mode" is wrong and that is where the confusion begins. For sure..starving people are no way holding onto fat. The correct description would be the body goes into defense mode and slows the metabolism down when it senses a severe change of any kind that would impact fat loss which is there to protect keep the body safe from famine.
In my opinion; extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts the body in a defense mode that holds onto fat. You hear it all the time ..that when someone starts exercising like mad..they gain weight or don't lose. Then everyone says it is muscle ..but that doesn't happen in a week. The body is in defense mode..
Could it be that the extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts undo stress on the body, releasing cortisol - which will help maintain fat stores?0 -
The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.
If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..
Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.
I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have lots of body fat.
I think the term "starvation mode" is wrong and that is where the confusion begins. For sure..starving people are no way holding onto fat. The correct description would be the body goes into defense mode and slows the metabolism down when it senses a severe change of any kind that would impact fat loss which is there to protect keep the body safe from famine.
In my opinion; extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts the body in a defense mode that holds onto fat. You hear it all the time ..that when someone starts exercising like mad..they gain weight or don't lose. Then everyone says it is muscle ..but that doesn't happen in a week. The body is in defense mode..
Could it be that the extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts undo stress on the body, releasing cortisol - which will help maintain fat stores?
Yep. Both raise cortisol levels which is NOT a dieter's friend. Also, a high carb diet, because it raises insulin levels (and leads to insulin resistance) is part of the problem. Protein and vegetables are the dieter's friends (and part of the solution) because such a diet lowers insulin levels. Lifting weights helps the muscles to be more insulin sensitive and offsets the march toward Type II diabetes that a large number of obese people are on.0 -
The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.
If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..
Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.
I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have lots of body fat.
I think the term "starvation mode" is wrong and that is where the confusion begins. For sure..starving people are no way holding onto fat. The correct description would be the body goes into defense mode and slows the metabolism down when it senses a severe change of any kind that would impact fat loss which is there to protect keep the body safe from famine.
In my opinion; extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts the body in a defense mode that holds onto fat. You hear it all the time ..that when someone starts exercising like mad..they gain weight or don't lose. Then everyone says it is muscle ..but that doesn't happen in a week. The body is in defense mode..
Could it be that the extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts undo stress on the body, releasing cortisol - which will help maintain fat stores?
Yep. Both raise cortisol levels which is NOT a dieter's friend. Also, a high carb diet, because it raises insulin levels (and leads to insulin resistance) is part of the problem. Protein and vegetables are the dieter's friends (and part of the solution) because such a diet lowers insulin levels. Lifting weights helps the muscles to be more insulin sensitive and offsets the march toward Type II diabetes that a large number of obese people are on.
But wouldn't that (increased cortisol) also cause muscle wasting? So, the net effect could still be weight loss. Not desirable weight loss, but weight loss nonetheless.
So, what happens to someone in "defense mode" if they lower their calorie intake? We are asking about total weight loss, not just fat (i.e. not body composition effects).
again, just a 'knowledge for knowledge's sake' question, not advocating this clearly bad approach to weight loss.0 -
People have been known to simply "shrink" Body fat stays the same while weight drops.
Skinny-fat
No thanx!0 -
I think it just varies for each person. I lost weight at 1290 for a few months...then stalled for a long time. I played with slowly increasing my cals and it jumpstarted back up again. Stalled...I then changed my eating habits to cleaner options, then it jumpstarted again. Now I am now in a bulk phase...by my choice. :P0
-
The more weight you loose the faster your metabolism runs which burns more fat.
You should adjust your calorie intake after some weight loss see where your numbers sit.
If you do not eat enough calories the body will go into starvation mode and hold on to fat no weight loss.
Eat more the body will begin metabolizing again at rate for your current weight and will burn off the fat stores once again as it is no longer in starvation mode..
Very simplistic explanation but get the point over.
I think there are people all over the world that would disagree with this. They eat very little calories and their bodies do not hold on to fat. Starving people do not have lots of body fat.
I think the term "starvation mode" is wrong and that is where the confusion begins. For sure..starving people are no way holding onto fat. The correct description would be the body goes into defense mode and slows the metabolism down when it senses a severe change of any kind that would impact fat loss which is there to protect keep the body safe from famine.
In my opinion; extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts the body in a defense mode that holds onto fat. You hear it all the time ..that when someone starts exercising like mad..they gain weight or don't lose. Then everyone says it is muscle ..but that doesn't happen in a week. The body is in defense mode..
Could it be that the extreme calorie reduction or extreme exercise puts undo stress on the body, releasing cortisol - which will help maintain fat stores?
Yep. Both raise cortisol levels which is NOT a dieter's friend. Also, a high carb diet, because it raises insulin levels (and leads to insulin resistance) is part of the problem. Protein and vegetables are the dieter's friends (and part of the solution) because such a diet lowers insulin levels. Lifting weights helps the muscles to be more insulin sensitive and offsets the march toward Type II diabetes that a large number of obese people are on.
But wouldn't that (increased cortisol) also cause muscle wasting? So, the net effect could still be weight loss. Not desirable weight loss, but weight loss nonetheless.
So, what happens to someone in "defense mode" if they lower their calorie intake? We are asking about total weight loss, not just fat (i.e. not body composition effects).
again, just a 'knowledge for knowledge's sake' question, not advocating this clearly bad approach to weight loss.
The most immediate effect would be water retention if cortisol levels were high. Over time, arm and leg muscles would atrophy a bit and belly fat would be added under conditions of high cortisol. Yes, calorie restriction below TDEE would result in a loss but without exercise, it is as likely to be as much muscle (or more muscle) than fat. When the body is in defense mode (and I like to call it "survival mode" rather than defense mode) caused by calorie restriction, it will (in its "wisdom") burn muscle for energy (because muscle takes more calories to maintain than does fat and there are bodily processes that require amino acids to complete). Your body is all about surviving and not so much about having big strong muscles. That is why it is recommended here that you don't have any more than a 20% calorie deficit.0 -
This confuses me, too. I don't have anything helpful to add about this topic except my own experiences. I just know that when I hear I should eat more, it scares me. I didn't really see anything posted here that quantifies how MUCH more to eat.
I am a 55 year old woman (post menopausal, when the metabolism really slows down), with a full-time desk job. I've checked many sources to determine my daily caloric needs for just existing, and it seems that around 1400 is the going number. I work out every morning for an hour and take the dogs for a walk every evening.
I've lost the same 15 pounds twice over the past ten years. THIS time I'm going to really commit to maintenance, when I get there, which I did not do before.
All I know is that the only way I've lost weight is by journaling it - whether on a website or written. I've done Weight Watchers and ediets, and lost both times.
Logging absolutely accurate calories eaten and burned is probably not possible, but I do the best I can with the tools provided both on MFP and a calorie count book I have.
I believe that most people will hit a plateau at some point in their weight loss journey. I think I'm on one now. I plan to mix up the exercise a bit and also the foods I eat. I tend to eat the same things just to keep it simple.
I changed my setting to lose 1/2 pound a week rather than 1 pound, after reading these posts. I have come to believe it's better to lose it more slowly; in the past I was impatient and lost it too quickly, and then gained it back.
Anyhow, I learn a lot from reading all the posts on here, and enjoy reading about others' successes.0 -
This confuses me, too. I don't have anything helpful to add about this topic except my own experiences. I just know that when I hear I should eat more, it scares me. I didn't really see anything posted here that quantifies how MUCH more to eat.
I am a 55 year old woman (post menopausal, when the metabolism really slows down), with a full-time desk job. I've checked many sources to determine my daily caloric needs for just existing, and it seems that around 1400 is the going number. I work out every morning for an hour and take the dogs for a walk every evening.
I've lost the same 15 pounds twice over the past ten years. THIS time I'm going to really commit to maintenance, when I get there, which I did not do before.
All I know is that the only way I've lost weight is by journaling it - whether on a website or written. I've done Weight Watchers and ediets, and lost both times.
Logging absolutely accurate calories eaten and burned is probably not possible, but I do the best I can with the tools provided both on MFP and a calorie count book I have.
I believe that most people will hit a plateau at some point in their weight loss journey. I think I'm on one now. I plan to mix up the exercise a bit and also the foods I eat. I tend to eat the same things just to keep it simple.
I changed my setting to lose 1/2 pound a week rather than 1 pound, after reading these posts. I have come to believe it's better to lose it more slowly; in the past I was impatient and lost it too quickly, and then gained it back.
Anyhow, I learn a lot from reading all the posts on here, and enjoy reading about others' successes.
Yeah--if you only have 15 pounds to lose, you should definitely cut back to 1/2 pound a week loss. It will take longer but you will be happier with the results. Are you lifting at all? Lifting has definitely helped me a LOT.0 -
I believe it has more to do with compliance and accurate logging than anything else.0
-
0
-
Eating more doesnt equal more weight loss. Its being diligent consistently watching portions and exercising. You cant change physics and the energy equation. if you eat more then what you burn you will gain weight no matter what you do.
Paleo or low carb is another good example just because these have their own properties doesn't mean that you can eat more.
If someone is gaining on 1200 calories most likely those 1200 are more than 1200 this is yet another reason why calorie counting improperly is much like not counting at all.0 -
bump0
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk&sns=em
This is a 20+ min video from Lane Norton about metabolic damage.
He does talk about contest prep but it applies to everyone.
Listen to what he is saying because some people who are living with a suppressed metabolism from under eating can slowly come out of that hole and have a better metabolic rate just by slowly increasing what they are eating.
You are right. Worked for me. The less I ate, the less I moved and got deeper into the hole. It was a hard climb to get back out and now I am paranoid about falling back in! I'm becoming an "exercise nut" for the first time in my life. :laugh:0 -
There are people that do that, they are called hardgainersIf it were true that your body could magically adjust to ever-higher amounts of calories, no one would be fat.
Put a 'hard gainer' in a controlled environment and have him or her eat over TDEE, they'll gain weight. Hard gainers are just people that have trouble eating over their TDEE because of appetite or lifestyle or whatever, not because their body miraculously goes into super ultra red-bull, Mountain Dew, and Amp orgy overdrive when they eat.0 -
There are people that do that, they are called hardgainersIf it were true that your body could magically adjust to ever-higher amounts of calories, no one would be fat.
Put a 'hard gainer' in a controlled environment and have him or her eat over TDEE, they'll gain weight. Hard gainers are just people that have trouble eating over their TDEE because of appetite or lifestyle or whatever, not because their body miraculously goes into super ultra red-bull, Mountain Dew, and Amp orgy overdrive when they eat.
Amp Orgy Overdrive is going to be the name of my new band. I've got drums and or vocals...anyone else on board? i'm thinking late 70's lounge music.0 -
Part of my comment was misunderstood about eating more to weigh less. One comment was about water retention. Another was that a carb is a carb. Water retention can reflect as a gain on the scale. If you reduce water retention, you can reduce that gain. If you can choose between a food that will reduce and one that won't, why not pick the one that reduces the likelihood of retention? A carb is a carb to your body.kind of true. But if one carb has less protein and fiber than the other, why not pick the better one?. the one will keep you fuller longer meaning you could eat less to be satisfied.0
-
Part of my comment was misunderstood about eating more to weigh less. One comment was about water retention. Another was that a carb is a carb. Water retention can reflect as a gain on the scale. If you reduce water retention, you can reduce that gain. If you can choose between a food that will reduce and one that won't, why not pick the one that reduces the likelihood of retention? A carb is a carb to your body.kind of true. But if one carb has less protein and fiber than the other, why not pick the better one?. the one will keep you fuller longer meaning you could eat less to be satisfied.
"better" has nothing to do with whether you'll shed water as a result. Why not choose the one that would decrease water retention? Because eventually you'll probably want those other options and the water loss comes back.0 -
You could cover Afternoon Delight and Ariel. (
There are people that do that, they are called hardgainersIf it were true that your body could magically adjust to ever-higher amounts of calories, no one would be fat.
Put a 'hard gainer' in a controlled environment and have him or her eat over TDEE, they'll gain weight. Hard gainers are just people that have trouble eating over their TDEE because of appetite or lifestyle or whatever, not because their body miraculously goes into super ultra red-bull, Mountain Dew, and Amp orgy overdrive when they eat.
Amp Orgy Overdrive is going to be the name of my new band. I've got drums and or vocals...anyone else on board? i'm thinking late 70's lounge music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGFW9jCFml4) 0 -
Interesting discussion.0
-
We're basically talking about how many slices of bread are in a loaf. Depends on how thin you slice it. Same with causality here. You can arbitrarily make a finer distinction between "increased intensity" and "weight loss" and keep slicing ever thinner to say the new thing is the most direct cause.I don't know. I was only pointing out that in your hypotheticals the increase was an essential link in the causal chain that eventually produced weight loss.
Like here: "Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts."
Increased cals -> more energy -> intense workouts -> increased TDEE -> weight loss
Increased TDEE is the proximal cause, but if you remove "Increased cals" at the beginning, none of the other things happen and weight loss doesn't occur. So it's still causing weight loss.
No, the increased intensity is. If you increase cals but don't increase workout intensity, you won't suddenly start losing weight, will you? You could in theory get the same energy boost from a caffeine pill rather than an increase in cals. Then you still see the weight loss despite keeping cals steady. The intensity is causing the weight loss, the question is what's causing the increased intensity. Could be any number of things.
I don't think anyone has suggested that increasing cals is the only thing that could trigger further weight loss. Sure there are multiple things that could cause it, like doing meth too.
It's not an unconditional/unqualified statement.
You're right.
But the point of this thread was to question the rampant advise on this site that if you aren't seeing weight loss despite eating what many consider a low cal diet that you need to increase cals.
Rarely do people question how the person is estimating cals consumed/burned, how they got to 1200 cals per day, etc etc. The immediate response is always, "omfg, you need to eat more!" as of they will be dead in a week.
If people arent seeing the result they expect,maybe they should log more carefully, stop lying to themselves about that 1 piece of candy or that little bit of butter or the last couple bites of their kids' pizza, how many cals they are really burning during their etymological session, how hard they are really pushing in the gym, etc.
Are there times when people need to eat more? Definitely. But 9 times out of 10 I'm betting the problem isn't the 1200 calorie goal but rather in their estimating and/or logging.
But my beliefs aside, no one has shown that an increase in cals leads directly to more weight loss for the average dieter.
Give this man a medal! And a cookie to go with.0 -
This confuses me, too. I don't have anything helpful to add about this topic except my own experiences. I just know that when I hear I should eat more, it scares me. I didn't really see anything posted here that quantifies how MUCH more to eat.
I am a 55 year old woman (post menopausal, when the metabolism really slows down), with a full-time desk job. I've checked many sources to determine my daily caloric needs for just existing, and it seems that around 1400 is the going number. I work out every morning for an hour and take the dogs for a walk every evening.
I've lost the same 15 pounds twice over the past ten years. THIS time I'm going to really commit to maintenance, when I get there, which I did not do before.
All I know is that the only way I've lost weight is by journaling it - whether on a website or written. I've done Weight Watchers and ediets, and lost both times.
Logging absolutely accurate calories eaten and burned is probably not possible, but I do the best I can with the tools provided both on MFP and a calorie count book I have.
I believe that most people will hit a plateau at some point in their weight loss journey. I think I'm on one now. I plan to mix up the exercise a bit and also the foods I eat. I tend to eat the same things just to keep it simple.
I changed my setting to lose 1/2 pound a week rather than 1 pound, after reading these posts. I have come to believe it's better to lose it more slowly; in the past I was impatient and lost it too quickly, and then gained it back.
Anyhow, I learn a lot from reading all the posts on here, and enjoy reading about others' successes.
Yeah--if you only have 15 pounds to lose, you should definitely cut back to 1/2 pound a week loss. It will take longer but you will be happier with the results. Are you lifting at all? Lifting has definitely helped me a LOT.
Yes, I do weight lifting three times per week; thank you for your reply.0 -
I just wanted to clear things up. I have a bad right foot after 6 foot surgeries. My back is shot, having nerve damage and arthritis. I can't go out for a jog, so my ONLY means of burning calories is riding this recumbent bike. After my hour ride (yes, I increased the time) at a steady pace, I drink EAS whey protein powder after. About 3 hours later, I will eat something vegan, or a salad or something. Then, I juice for dinner. I put in apples, cukes, celery, carrots, spinach, kale, tomato, beet root (2x per week) Bell peppers, fresh parsley, cabbage and radishes....or whatever I have. I can't help it that veggies are low in calories, but, as a prior food addict, I feel I'm doing what I have to do. I drink lots of water during and after cycling, and feel really good! I've lost 21 pounds, and will weigh in again on March 13th, and I'm getting smaller.....I don't understand what the problem is here. I did learn through reading all the posts following mine, that my body will resort to taking fat THEN muscle....so, since I want to lose fat, thats exactly what I want my body to do! When the weight loss stops, I will try what everyone has suggested and somehow up my calorie intake. So, new question.....am I really harming myself???? Thank you for taking the time to read this. I know nothing about nutrition and all those big letters you guys were throwing out there, all I know, is that I promised my son, who is deployed over seas that I would get this weight off, as he is very concerned about my health. Can't one person tell me that I'm doing a good job, keep it up, good for you!! Some of these posts are very discouraging....and I just want to understand why what I'm doing is wrong??0
-
Sorry to keep bringing this up. I just really want to understand better, so I can have better results. And Like I said before, what I'm doing cause a 21 pound weight loss in a month. I was at 274 on Jan. 11th, 253 on Feb. 13th and am weighing in again on March 13th. So, I guess I'll see then if what I'm doing is still working or not. Sorry to be a bother folks....I'm just really new to all this!0
-
bump0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions